| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | 
Universe Galaxies Stars logo.
     | Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine |

the existence of mankind.

Ten Years Since The Revolution at Amazon.

SAS Black Ops at Amazon.
Amazon Kindle EBook Reader: Click For More Information.

Hitler natural selection.
Hitler thought mankind's fate linked with natural selection.

The culturally superior, but less ruthless races, would in consequence of their limited soil, have to limit their increase at a time when the culturally inferior but more brutal and more natural to peoples, in consequence of their greater living areas, would still be in a position to increase without limit. In other words: some day the world will thus come into possession of theculturally inferior but more active men.

  Then, though in a perhaps very distant future, there will bebut two possibilities either the world will be governed according to the ideas of our modern democracy, and then the weight of any decision will result in favor of the numerically stronger races, or the world will be dominated in accordance with the laws of the natural order of force, and then it is the peoples of brutal will who will conquer, and consequentlyonce again not the nation of self restriction.

  No one can doubt that this world will some day be exposed to the severest struggles for the existence of mankind. In the end, only theurge for self-preservation can conquer. Beneath it socalled humanity, the expression of a mixture of stupidity, cowardice, and know-it-all conceit,will melt like snow in the March sun. Mankind has grown great in eternalstruggle, and only in eternal peace does it perish.

  For us Germans the slogan of 'inner colonization' is catastrophic,if for no other reason because it automatically reinforces us in the opinion that we have found a means which, in accordance with the pacifistic tendency, allows us ' to earn ' our right to exist by labour in a life of sweet slumbers.Once this doctrine were taken seriously in our country, it would mean the end of every exertion to preserve for ourselves the place which is our due. Once the average German became convinced that he could secure his life andfuture in this way, all attempts at an active, and hence alone fertile, defense of German vital necessities would be doomed to failure. In the faceof such an attitude on the part of the nation any really beneficial foreignpolicy could be regarded as buried, and with it the future of the German people as a whole.

  Taking these consequences into account, it is no accident that it is always primarily the Jew who tries and succeeds in planting such mortally dangerous modes of thought in our people. He knows his customers too well not to realize that they gratefully let themselves be swindled by any gold-brick salesman who can make them think he has found a way to play a little trick on Nature, to make the hard, inexorable struggle for existence superfluous,and instead, sometimes by work, but sometimes by plain doing nothing, depending on how things 'come out,' to become the lord of the planet.

  It cannot be emphasized sharply enough that any German internalcolonization must serve to eliminate social abuses particularly to withdraw the soil from wide spread speculation, best can never suffice to secure the future of the nation without the acquisition of new soil.

  If we do not do this, we shall in a short time have arrived,not only at the end of our soil, but also at the end of our strength.

  Finally, the following must be stated:

  The limitation to a definite small area of soil, inherent ininternal colonization, like the same final effect obtained by restrictionof procreation, leads to an exceedingly unfavorable politicomilitary situationin the nation in question.

  The size of the area inhabited by a people constitutes in itselfan essential factor for determining its outward security. The greater the quantity of space at the disposal of a people, the greater its natural protection; for military decisions against peoples living in a small restricted areahave always been obtained more quickly and hence more easily, and in particularmore effectively and completely than can, conversely, be possible against territorially extensive states. In the size of a state's territory there always lies a certain protection against frivolous attacks, since success can be achieved only after hard struggles, and therefore the risk of a rash assault will seem too great unless there are quite exceptional grounds forit. Hence the very size of a state offers in itself a basis for more easily preserving the freedom and independence of a people, while, conversely, the smallness of such a formation is a positive invitation to seizure.

  Actually the two first possibilities for creating a balance between the rising population and the stationary amount of soil were rejected in the so-called national circles of the Reich. The reasons for this positionwere, to be sure, different from those above mentioned: government circles adopted a negative attitude toward the limitation of births out of a certainmoral feeling; they indignantly rejected internal colonization because init they scented an attack against large land holdings and therein the beginningof a wider struggle against private property in general. In view of the form in which particularly the latter panacea was put forward, they mayvery well have been right in this assumption.

  On the whole, the defense against the broad masses was not veryskillful and by no means struck at the heart of the problem.

Thus there remained but two ways of securing work and bread for the rising population.

  3. Either new soil could be acquired and the superfluous millions sent off each year, thus keeping the nation on a self sustaining basis; or we could

  4. Produce for foreign needs through industry and commerce,and defray the cost of living from the proceeds.

  In other words: either a territorial policy, or a colonial andcommercial policy.

  Both ways were contemplated, examined, recommended, and combatedby different political tendencies, and the last was finally taken.

  The healthier way of the two would, to be sure, have been the first.

  The acquisition of new soil for the settlement of the excess population possesses an infinite number of advantages, particularly if we turn from the present to the future.

  For once thing, the possibility of preserving a healthy peasant class as a foundation for a whole nation can never be valued highly enough.Many of our present-day sufferings are only the consequence of the unhealthy relationship between rural and city population A solid stock of small andmiddle peasants has at all times been the best defense against social ills such as we possess today. And, moreover this is the only solution whichenables a nation to earn its daily bread within the inner circuit of itseconomy. Industry and commerce recede from their unhealthy leading positionand adjust themselves to the general framework of a national economy of balanced supply and demand. Both thus cease to be the basis of the nation'ssustenance and become a mere instrument to that end. Since they now have only a balance ' Aberdeen domestic production and demand in all fields, they make the Subsistence of the people as a whole more or less independent foreign countries, and thus help to secure the freedom of the state andthe independence of the nation, particularly in difficult Periods.

It must be said that such a territorial policy cannot be fulfilled in theCameroons, but today almost exclusively in Europe. We must, therefore, coollyand objectively adopt the standpoint that it can certainly not be the intentionof Heaven to give one people fifty times as much land and soil in this worldas another. In this case we must not let political boundaries obscure forus the boundaries of eternal justice. If this Earth really has room for all to live in, let us be given the soil we need for our livelihood.

  True, they will no t willingly do this. But then the law of self-preservaion goes into effect; and what is refused to amicable methods,it is up to the fist to take. If our forefathers had let their decisionsdepend on the same pacifistic nonsense as our contemporaries, we shouldpossess only a third of our present territory; but in that case there wouldscarcely be any German people for us to worry about in Europe today. No-itis to our natural determination to fight for our own existence that we owethe two Ostmarks of the Reich and hence that inner strength arising fromthe greatness of our state and national territory which alone has enabledus to exist up to the present.

  And for another reason this would have been the correct solution

  Today many European states are like pyramids stood on theirheads. Their European area is absurdly small in comparison to their weightof colonies, foreign trade, etc. We may say: summit in Europe, base in thewhole world; contrasting with the American Union which possesses its basein its own continent and touches the rest of the Earth only with its summit.And from this comes the immense inner strength of this state and the weaknessof most European colonial powers.

  Nor is England any proof to the contrary, since in considerationof the British Empire we too easily forget the Anglo-Saxon world as such.The position of England, if only because of her linguistic and culturalbond with the American Union, can be compared to no other state in Europe.

  For Germany, consequently, the only possibility for carryingout a healthy territorial policy lay in the acquisition of new land in Europeitself. Colonies cannot serve this purpose unless they seem in large partsuited for settlement by Europeans. But in the nineteenth century such colonialterritories were no longer obtainable by peaceful means. Consequently, sucha colonial policy could only have been carried out by means of a hard strugglewhich, however, would have been carried on to much better purpose, not forterritories outside of Europe, but for land on the home continent itself.

  Such a decision, it is true, demands undivided devotion. Itis not permissible to approach with half measures or even with hesitationa task whose execution seems possible only by the harnessing of the verylast possible ounce of energy. This means that the entire political leadershipof the Reich should have devoted itself to this exclusive aim; never shouldany step have been taken, guided by other considerations than the recognitionof this task and its requirements. It was indispensable to see dearly thatthis aim could be achieved only by struggle, and consequently to face thecontest of arms with calm and composure.

  All alliances, therefore, should have been viewed exclusivelyfrom this standpoint and judged according to their possible utilization.If land was desired in Europe, it could be obtained by and large only atthe expense of Russia, and this meant that the new Reich must again setitself on the march along the road of the Teutonic Knights of old, to obtainby the German sword sod for the German plow and daily bread for the nation.

  For such a policy there was but one ally in Europe: England.

  With England alone was it possible, our rear protected, to beginthe new Germanic march. Our right to do this would have been no less thanthe right of our forefathers. None of our pacifists refuses to eat the breadof the East, although the first plowshare in its day bore the name of 'sword'!

  Consequently, no sacrifice should have been too great for winningEngland's willingness. We should have renounced colonies and sea power,and spared English industry our competition.

  Only an absolutely clear orientation could lead to such a goal:renunciation of world trade and colonies; renunciation of a German war fleet;concentration of all the state's instruments of power on the land army.

  The result, to be sure, would have been a momentary limitationbut a great and mighty future.

  There was a time when England would have listened to reasonon this point, since she was well aware that Germany as a result of herincreased population had to seek some way out and either find it with Englandin Europe or without England in the world.

  And it can primarily be attributed to this realization if atthe turn of the century London itself attempted to approach Germany. Forthe first time a thing became evident which in the last years we have hadoccasion to observe in a truly terrifying fashion. People were unpleasantlyaffected by the thought of having to pull Fngland's chestnuts out of thefire; as though there ever could be an alliance on any other basis thana mutual business deal. And with England such a deal could very well havebeen made. British diplomacy was still clever enough to realize that noservice can be expected without a return.

  Just suppose that an astute German foreign policy had takenover the role of Japan in 1904, and we can scarcely measure the consequencesthis would have had for Germany.

  There would never have been any 'World War.'

  The bloodshed in the year 1904 would have saved ten times asmuch in the years 1914 to 1918.

  And what a position Germany would occupy in the world today!

  In that light, to be sure, the alliance with Austria was anabsurdity.

  For this mummy of a state allied itself with Germany, not inorder to fight a war to its end, but for the preservation of an eternalpeace which could astutely be used for the slow but certain exterminationof Germanism in the monarchy.

  This alliance was an impossibility for another reason: becausewe could not expect a state to take the offensive in championing nationalGerman interests as long as this state did not possess the power and determinationto put an end to the process of de-Germanization on its own immediate borders.If Germany did not possess enough national awareness and ruthless determinationto snatch power over the destinies of ten million national comrades fromthe hands of the impossible Habsburg state, then truly we had no right toexpect that she would ever lend her hand to such farseeing and bold plans.The attitude of the old Reich on the Austrian question was the touchstoneof its conduct in the struggle for the destiny of the whole nation.

  In any case we were not justified in looking on, as year afteryear Germanism was increasingly repressed, since the value of Aushia's fitnessfor alliance was determined exclusively by the preservation of the Germanelement.

  This road, however, was not taken at all.

  These people feared nothing so much as struggle, yet they werefinally forced into it at the most unfavorable hour.

  They wanted to run away from destiny, and it caught up withthem. They dreamed of preserving world peace, and landed in the World War.

  And this was the most significant reason why this third wayof molding the German future was not even considered. They knew that theacquisition of new soil was possible only in the East, they saw the strugglethat would be necessary and yet wanted peace at any price; for the watchwordof German foreign policy had long ceased to be: preservation of the Germannation by all methods; but rather: preservation of world peace by all means.With what success, everyone knows.

  I shall return to this point in particular.

  Thus there remained the fourth possibility

  Industry and world trade, sea power and colonies.

  Such a development, to be sure, was at first easier and alsomore quickly attainable. The settlement of land is a slow process, oftenlasting centuries; in fact, its inner strength is to be sought preciselyin the fact that it is not a sudden blaze, but a gradual yet solid and continuousgrowth, contrasting with an industrial development which can be blown upin the course of a few years, but in that case is more like a soapbubblethan solid strength. A fieet, to be sure, can be built more quickly thanfarms can be established in stubborn struggle and settled with peasants,but it is also more rapidly destroyed than the latter.

  If, nevertheless, Germany took this road, she should at leasthave clearly recognized that this development would some day likewise endin struggle. Only children could have thought that they could get theirbananas in the 'peaceful contest of nations,' by friendly and moral conductand constant emphasis on their peaceful intentions, as they so high-soundinglyand unctuously babbled; in other words, without ever having to take up arms.No: if we chose this road, England would some day inevitably become ourenemy. It was more than senseless-but quite in keeping with our own innocence-towax indignant over the fact that England should one day take the libertyto oppose our peaceful activity with the brutality of a violent egoist.

  It is true that we, I am sorry to say, would never have donesuch a thing.

  If a European territorial policy was only possible against Russiain alliance with England, conversely, a policy of colonies and world tradewas conceivable only against England and with Russia. But then we had dauntlesslyto draw the consequences- and, above all, abandon Austria in all haste.

  Viewed from all angles, this alliance with Austria was realmadness by the turn of the century.

  But we did not think of concluding an alliance with Russia againstEngland, any more than with England against Russia, for in both cases theend would have been war, and to prevent this we decided in favor of a policyof commerce and industry. In the 'peaceful economic ' conquest of the worldwe possessed a recipe which was expected to break the neck of the formerpolicy of violence once and for all.l Occasionally, perhaps, we were notquite sure of ourselves, particularly when from time to time incomprehensiblethreats came over from England; therefore, we decided to build a fleet,though not to attack and destroy England, but for the 'defense' of our oldfriend 'world peace' and 'peaceful ' conquest of the world. Consequently,it was kept on a somewhat more modest scale in all respects, not only innumber but also in the tonnage of the individual ships as well as in armament,so as in the final analysis to let our 'peaceful' intentions shine throughafter all.

  The talk about the 'peaceful economic' conquest of the worldwas possibly the greatest nonsense which has ever been exalted to be a guidingprinciple of state policy. What made this nonsense even worse was that itsproponents did not hesitate to call upon England as a crown witness forthe possibility of such an achievement. The crimes of our academic doctrineand conception of history in this connection can scarcely be made good andare only a striking proof of how many people there are who 'learn' historywithout understanding or even comprehending it. England, in particular,should have been recognized as the striking refutation of this theory; forno people has ever with greater brutality better prepared its economic conquestswith the sword, and later ruthlessly defended theme than the English nation.Is it not positively the distinguishing feature of British statesmanshipto draw economic acquisitions from political strength, and at once to recastevery gain in economic strength into political power? And what an errorto believe that England is personally too much of a coward to stake herown blood for her economic policy! The fact that the English people possessedno 'people's army' in no way proved the contrary; for what matters is notthe momentary military form of the fighting forces, but rather the willand determination to risk those which do exist. England has always possessedwhatever armament she happened to need. She always fought with the weaponswhich success demanded. She fought with mercenaries as long as mercenariessufficed; but she reached down into the precious blood of the whole nationwhen only such a sacrifice could bring victory; but the determination forvictory, the tenacity and ruthless pursuit of this struggle, remained unchanged.

  In Germany, however, the school, the press, and comic magazinescultivated a conception of the Englishman's character, and almost more soof his empire, which inevitably led to one of the most insidious delusions;for gradually everyone was infected by this nonsense, and the consequencewas an underestimation for which we would have to pay most bitterly. Thisfalsification went so deep that people became convinced that in the Englishmanthey faced a business man as shrewd as personally he was unbelievably cowardly.The fact that a world empire the size of the British could not be put togetherby mere subterfuge and swindling was unfortunately something that nevereven occurred to our exalted professors of academic science. The few whoraised a voice of warning were ignored or killed by silence. I rememberwell my comrades' looks of astonishment when we faced the Tommies in personin Flanders. After the very first days of battle the conviction dawned oneach and every one of them that these Scotsmen did not exactly jibe withthe pictures they had seen fit to give us in the comic magazines and pressdispatches.

  It was then that I began my first reflections about the importanceof the form of propaganda.

This falsification, however, did have one good side for those who spreadit: by this example, even though it was incorrect, they were able to demonstratethe correctness of the economic conquest of the world. If the Englishmanhad succeeded, we too were bound to succeed, and our definitely greaterhonesty, the absence in us of that specifically English 'perfidy,' was regardedas a very special plus. For it was hoped that this would enable us to winthe affection, particularly of the smaller nations, and the confidence ofthe large ones the more easily.

  It did not occur to us that our honesty was a profound horrorto the others, if for no other reason because we ourselves believed allthese things seriously while the rest of the world regarded such behavioras the expression of a special slyness and disingenuousness, until, to theirgreat, infinite amazement, the revolution gave them a deeper insight intothe boundless stupidity of our honest convictions.

  However, the absurdity of this 'economic conquest' at once madethe absurdity of the Triple Alliance clear and comprehensible. For withwhat other state could we ally ourselves? In alliance with Austria, to besure, we could not undertake any military conquest, even in Europe alone.Precisely therein consisted the inner weakness of the alliance from thevery first day. A Bismarck could permit himself this makeshift, but notby a long shot every bungling successor, least of all at a time when certainessential premises of Bismarck's alliance had long ceased to exist; forBismarck still believed that in Austria he had to do with a German state.But with the gradual introduction of universal suffrage, this country hadsunk to the status of an unGerman hodgepodge with a parliamentary government.

Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler: Chapters Below.

Related Adolf Hitler and Nazi Pages

  Go To Print Article  

Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts

the web this site
 | GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. |